linux-kernel - Re: [v6 07/15] mm: defining memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1d93e0eb-080a-ed2b-de2d-092f397a981c@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0400
From:   Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        x86@...nel.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        willy@...radead.org, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org,
        will.deacon@....com, catalin.marinas@....com, sam@...nborg.org
Subject: Re: [v6 07/15] mm: defining memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw

>> Sure, I could do this, but as I understood from earlier Dave Miller's
>> comments, we should do one logical change at a time. Hence, introduce API in
>> one patch use it in another. So, this is how I tried to organize this patch
>> set. Is this assumption incorrect?
> 
> Well, it really depends. If the patch is really small then adding a new
> API along with users is easier to review and backport because you have a
> clear view of the usage. I believe this is the case here. But if others
> feel otherwise I will not object.

I will merge them.

Thank you,
Pasha